Morales v City of New York

Morales v City of New York 2012 NY Slip Op 09149 Decided on December 27, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 27, 2012
Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Renwick, Freedman, JJ.
8463 18017/06 85774/07

[*1]Altagracia Morales, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

The City of New York, et al., Defendants, CSC Holdings, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellants-Respondents. CSC Holdings, Inc., et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs- Appellants-Respondents, CFG Cable Corporation, Third-Party Defendant- Respondent-Appellant.




Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP, New York (Steven B.
Prystowsky of counsel), for appellants-respondents.
McGaw, Alventosa & Zajac, Jericho (Ross P. Masler of
counsel), for respondent-appellant.
David M. Schwarz, Dix Hills, for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered February 18, 2011, which denied defendants CSC Holdings, Inc. and Cablevision Systems NYC Corporation's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them and third-party defendant CFG Cable Corporation's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motions granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint as against CSC Holdings, Inc., Cablevision Systems NYC Corporation and CFG Cable Corporation and dismissing the third party complaint.

The evidence submitted by CSC Holdings, Cablevision and CFG that they had not received any complaints regarding work performed in connection with the installation of a cable conduit in 1992 was uncontroverted. The inspection conducted by plaintiff's expert, approximately 14 years after the work was performed, did not constitute probative evidence of negligence by the movants, as his inferences as to the quality of the work performed by these [*2]defendants were speculative. Because plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue as to the liability of the movants, the motions for summary judgment should have been granted.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: DECEMBER 27, 2012

CLERK